A New Cinderella — Page 12

There's no need for snotty remarks. I'm simply stating the quality of the performance should match the ticket price, no matter what key the songs are. I never suggested anything as ignorant as a $100 discount. I can't deny that people will still get an experience in the theatre and yes, most audience members wouldn't know the difference. Doesn't mean that makes it ok. Welcome to commercial theatre, I guess.

Don't go. Simple enough.

And so can everyone else. If people don't mind the transposing, they will go. If you know you aren't going to like it, why waste the time and energy complaining.

"I'm only trying to discuss it with people who (I thought) would look at it from an artistic viewpoint."

Someday, perhaps when you're older, you'll understand the difference between an artistic discussion and incessant whining. This is a 12 week replacement casting, not life or death. The 10-14 year old girls who are the target audience will still enjoy it even if some 25+ year old males will spend the better part of their waking hours picking her performance apart over and over and over again even though they haven't seen it and are going off of bootlegged audio clip. Sad really.

The art of the show is still there, its a gorgeously conceived show and has brilliant technical elements that the show will still have. The orchestrations have been re-worked to suite her, and Fran's costumes have been altered to suite her, all artistic elements that show the producers are making an effort to keep up the quality of the show. I wasn't trying to be rude to you, I apologize if it came across that way. To CRJ though, this is her art, she's being her, she's probably having a blast, we can't fault her for stretching herself artistically. Unlike most pop stars she's venturing out of her box. I would like to hear Fran's vocals bandied about here, which I'm sure have also been altered, I know she put out a charity single, but it's not anything staggering. Anyway, there's always the option to see the understudy, CRJ is only doing 6 shows a week as negotiated.

^^ I totally agree, I saw it over the Summer with the original cast and it was magical, it all worked so well! They are big glass shoes to fill! I am a working actor, my mother always says to me, "why do you support those types of casting decisions when there are so many people like you that are better qualified and can't get a break!" I do understand your frustration, but I think the target audience for the show is unfortunately the Disney Channel generation of manufactured "stars" and as much as that kills me I'm happy they are experiencing live theatre and maybe if they make the decision to pursue it as a career they will see what the art of it all is about! I guess they have to start somewhere!

^^ I assume you're referring to the SAG interview? Laura didn't say anything quite so strong.


Start at 7:15

"and I remember going, 'This is Rogers & Hammerstein; it shouldn't be poppy (laughs).' But I'm glad that there are several versions of it and that two of them are more legit and that one of them embraces the pop world."

Ted Chapin's comment (Pres. of the R & H Organization) after Laura said this was, "and that's why we love you, Laura!"

I'm not even going to jump back into the discussion regarding Jepsen's vocals. The score (and this style of singing) is obviously not something she's totally suitable for--but, hey, at least all those little girls going to show are hearing what a true Broadway pit orchestra should sound like.

I'm just still puzzled by this casting as a business decision. Let's be honest here. Ms. Jepsen is not a huge star. She is a one-hit wonder with ONE incredibly successful, inescapable single with "Call Me Maybe", a couple of follow up singles which failed to replicate its success and some lucrative endorsement deals with Cover Girl and other brands. She was not the star--the song was. Any reasonably attractive girl-next-door with a semi-decent middle-of-the-road pop sound could have been substituted in that song and it would have been a massive hit. I understand that she's going to bring in some young girls who bought Kiss--and that's great for the girls and great for the future of theatre--but do we really think she can sell that many tickets on her name? I guess we'll find out in the weeks ahead.

Carly's got around 10 million followers on Twitter and that's a pretty good sized target audience right there.

I was initially pretty outraged when they announced Carly as Laura's replacement. (Raising hand, "Yes, I'm a Broadway snob.") But I've settled down since then and now see some positives in the casting. Regardless of the ways in which she's not the best fit for the role, she apparently is putting on a very heartfelt performance that connects with the audiences. She is communicating her love for the theater to 10 million teenyboppers. She seems to be engaging well with fans at the stage door. She's running a contest today in which she has hidden a glass slipper with two Cinderella tickets inside somewhere in NYC and will be giving clues about where they are located to her fans on Twitter.

I've gained a lot of respect for Carly too. It took a lot of guts to take this on. I've read that she subjected herself to an extensive audition process in order to get the role. She seems to have worked very, very hard during rehearsals and set about to learn everything she could from the experienced B'way performers. She may not have the ability to be a top B'way performer but she is doing everything the right way. If she was signed for a year, I'd have more of a problem with it, but if she can keep the show going for three months and attract new B'way fans, why not?

I agree with SamIAm.

Her excitement and passion for the show and the role is really wonderful to see, and having seen her, I really enjoy her performance. If the producers can get her out there on TV promoting the show, performing, etc, I don't see why this couldn't go well for everyone.

---